People vs Atienza Facts: Rolando Atienza was charged with Rape through force or intimidaton against minor Maria

Theresa Obias [13 yo] and was sentenced to RP. On Sept. 22, 1996, Rolando [35 yo] at around 3pm arrived and inquired about his Ninang Feling [Maria Theresas mother] and upon learning that Maria Theresa was alone, closed the door and windows and dragged Maria Theresa towards her mothers bed and forcibly rape her despite her resistance . After satisfying his lust, he then gave Maria Theresa money [P10.00] and threatened to harm her family should she report this to her mother. Felicissima [Maria Theresas mother] narrated that at around 5pm she found two P5.00-bills tucked into her daughters short pants and not in the habit of giving such amounts of money to her daughter, asked where she got it and it was then and there that she learned of the abuse that was done to her daughter. Dr. Fuentebella who examined the victim confirmed recent sexual contact evidenced by spermatozoa and opined that the victim was no longer a virgin since Rolando had sexually abused her previously. Dr. Belmonte, a psychiatrist conducted a psychological examination on the victim and Maria Theresa suffered from mild mental retardation and that although she was 13 years old, she had the mental age of an 8 year old. On Oct. 7, 1997, Rolando was found guilty of rape and in addition to rape being committed through force, TC concluded that Rolando would still be liable for rape even if no such force was exerted considering the mental age of Maria Theresa and was sentenced to RP. Issue: W/N appellant can be convicted of rape through a different mode of commission than what was alleged in the information. Ruling: TC did not find him guilty solely or rape through Art. 335 under paragraph 2 but the decision shows that the primary basis of his conviction was the finding that he had carnal knowledge of the victim through force and intimidation as properly charged in the information. Even though the victims subnormal mental capacity was not alleged in the information, [hence the conviction under Art. 335, par. 2] it cannot be denied that he did not object to the presentation of Dr. Belmonte who was called by the prosecution as witness to testify about the victims mental capacity. Instead of outright objecting to the evidence on the ground that the victims alleged subnormal capacity was not properly alleged in the information, the defense in fact waived this procedural infirmity by presenting evidence of its own to prove the contrary, that is to show that the victim was normal. Assuming he cannot be convicted of rape under Art. 335, par. 2, he is still liable for rape through force and intimidation since his guilt as properly charged in the information has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.